If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Fox News: Trayvon Would Be Alive If He Didn’t Have Street Attitude
More dog whistles from Fox...

On Tuesday afternoon, former New York City police detective Harry Houck told FoxNews.com that Trayvon Martin would still be alive today if he didn’t have “street attitude.”

Houck was part of a FoxNews.com live panel discussion about George Zimmerman’s ongoing trial for the alleged second-degree murder of Martin. After co-panelist Tamara Holder (a criminal defense attorney) pointed out that the state’s prosecution will likely point out how Martin was only carrying a bag of candy and a can of iced tea at the time of his death, Houck responded that regardless of whether the selected jury is “impartial,” the seed will already have been planted that Martin was an innocent, unarmed teenager:

“She was talking about the Skittles that he had, and the Coca-Cola that Trayvon Martin had. That doesn’t look good for the defense because he’s injecting something into their minds, like, this is a little kid with candy walking around the street. Listen, Trayvon Martin would be alive today if he didn’t have a street attitude. That’s the bottom line.”

Trayvon would be alive if he had simply gone home after he outran Zimmerman during Zimmerman's call to non-emergency dispatch. When that call ended, Zimmerman had no idea where Trayvon was, and it was dark, raining, and Zimmerman was in no shape to go searching for him.

The only way Zimmerman could have seen Trayvon is if the teen had re-emerged and let Zimmerman know where he was. Had he just gone back to Brandy Green's house--which was close by--Zimmerman would never have seen him.

Something just occurred to me: Why is it that liberals can claim that things that have absolutely nothing to do with race, like wanting lower taxes, opposition to state monopolies on medicine or belief in limited government are code words for racism, but words that are actually synonymous, like socialist, communist, Progressive and liberal cannot be used interchangeably?

Something just occurred to me: Why is it that liberals can claim that things that have absolutely nothing to do with race, like wanting lower taxes, opposition to state monopolies on medicine or belief in limited government are code words for racism, but words that are actually synonymous, like socialist, communist, Progressive and liberal cannot be used interchangeably?

Why ask questions you already know the answer to?

The American Left: Where everything is politics and politics is everything.

Something just occurred to me: Why is it that liberals can claim that things that have absolutely nothing to do with race, like wanting lower taxes, opposition to state monopolies on medicine or belief in limited government are code words for racism, but words that are actually synonymous, like socialist, communist, Progressive and liberal cannot be used interchangeably?

And its amazing that shooting someone who is pounding your head on the sidewalk is some how murder and beating someone to death because you think they're following you is some how self defense?

Facts don't matter, narratives do. The preferred narrative is a racist white gun culture that targets black youths, versus a narrative of free individuals keeping and bearing arms to protect themselves from predatory thugs. If the facts don't fit that narrative, then the facts must be dismissed, because it is the racist white gun culture narrative that serves the interests of those who would be our masters. I gives them the excuse to attack laws that they dislike and fear, and the people who are protected by those laws (who they also dislike and fear).

The way to beat them is to point out that the facts don't serve their narrative, and force them to retreat.

I have watched the whole thing. This guy was a comedy writer for Bill Maher, but it's interesting how actually intelligent he is. He builds a good argument and demonstrates how what the academy calls "postmodernism" leads to an evil outcome.

True. So what you do is give the school staff the power to stop whatever happens. If it's verbal teasing, you give them the power to tell the kids to stop it. If it's rock throwing, you give them the...